Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED127900: Faculty Perceptions of College Governance."

See other formats


DOCOHENT BESUHE 

ED 127 900 HE 008 217 



AUTHOR 
TITLE 
PUB DATE 
HOTE 

EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



Troutmaii^ James 6* 

Faculty Perceptions of College Governance. 
Jul 76 

50p.; Ed.D. Practicum^ Nova University 
BF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage. 

Administrative Organization; *College AdminiatraticTij 
♦College Faculty; Decision Baking; ♦Governance; 
♦Higher Education s Policy Formation; Power Structure; 
School Involvement; School Surveys; ♦Teacher 
Participation 
♦York College 



ABSTRACT 

York College of Pennsylvania^ which has moved from a 
junior college to a four- year institution in the last decade^ has 
responded to accreditation reports that suggested changes in the 
college's governing structure. A review of the literature shcii^jd that 
faculty should participate in governance on a shared-authority basis. 
The study was designed to survey the faculty to see how they 
perceived the governance of the college. The i^urvey was divided into 
areas of leaderships activation ^ communication^ interaction ^ 
decision-making r setting goals^ and feedback control. Particular 
recommendations were i-ade in areas that were found deficient. The 
results of the survey demonstrated that the faculty perceived the 
governance strucxure somewhere between the benevolent authoritative 
and consultative forms. The ratings^ calculated froa highest to 
lowest, were communication, setting goals, interaction, leadership, 
motivation, feedback controls, and decision-making. The highest rated 
question concerned the accuracy of upwards communications; the 
lowest, the level at which decisions were formally made. Specific 
recommendations were made for each area involved that had serious 
deficiencies. In general, the recommendations were to make the 
governance structure or the college more participatory. 
(Author/LBH) 



♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦f****^^ 

♦ Documents acguired by ERIC include many informal unpublished ♦ 

♦ materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ♦ 

♦ to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ♦ 

♦ reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ♦ 

♦ of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ♦ 

♦ via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDHS) . EDRS is not ♦ 

♦ responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ♦ 

♦ supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. , ♦ 
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*******♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*** 



ABSTRACT 



Troutman, James G, Faculty Perceptions of College 
Governance o Research Practicum presented to Nova University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Educati )n, July, 1976, 

York College of Pennsylvania has made some major 
changes during the past decade. The most major being that 
of moving from a junior college to a ifotir-year institution. 
The past two accreditation reports have suggested changes 
be made in the governing structure of the college. A review 
of the literature has shown that faculty should participate 
in governance on a shared authority basis. 

The study was designed to survey the faculty to see 
how they perceived the governance of the college. The 
survey was divided into areas of leadership, motivation, 
communication, interaction, decision-making, setting goals, 
and feedback control. Particular recommendations were made 
in areas which were found de;' - -lent. 

The results of the survey demonstrated that the 
faculty perceived the governance structure of York College 
of Pennsylvania somewhere between the benevolent authoritative 



and consultative forms. The ratings as cal^^^l^t^^ ft^^ 
highest to lowest were communication, setti^^S ^^^Is, 
interaction, leadership, motivation, feedba^^^ ^^ntrol^^ 
decision-making. The highest rated questioi^ ^^^Cerne^ 
accuracy of upwards communications while th^ lov/^^^ on 
the level at which decisions were formally t^^^^e^ 

Specific reconaendations were made ^^r ^^^^ ^^ea 
invol.ved that had serious deficiencies;. In ^^^^^ral, 
recommendations we;^e to make the governance ^^^e^ure 
the college niO^?e participatory. 



A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTION 
OF COLLEGE GOVERNANCE 

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE 
by 

James G. Troutman, M. A. 
York College of Pennsylvania 

DR. KENNETH VARCOE 
EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

A PRACTICUM PRESENTED TO NOVA UNXVERSITY 
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS, FOR THE 
DEGREE. OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION 

NOVA UNIVERSITY 

July 1976 



4 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 



'i , 

PRACTICUM EVALUATION FORM li 

LIST OF TABLES vii 

INTRODUCTION 1 

National Governance Trends 1 

Faculty Invol>7'ement in Governance 2 

Faculty Perceptions of Governance ... o ... # 3 

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 4 

The Need for Faculty Participation 5 

Governance by Consent « 5 

' Competency and Diversity of 

Participants . « o 7 

Motivation Research o 8 

How the Faculty Should Be Involved o . 10 

Justification for the Study 12 

PROCEDURES . . . . o o 17 

Population Used . . o . . . o . « • . 17 

Statistical Method Used 18 

Limitations and Assumptions 18 

v 



vi 

RESULTS . . • 19 

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS • * . • o 22 

General Discus£Sion 22 

Leadership • • • • .i» • 23 

Motivation 24 

Communication 26 

Interaction . o . » » . . . . 28 

Decision-Making . • . • o ^ . . 29 

Setting Goals ....... ^ - • 31 

Feedback Control 32 

Recommendations 33 

Potential for Improvement " • 35 

BIBLIOGRAPHY o 37 

APPENDIXES 

Faculty Questionnaire □ □ 42 

Cover Letter to Questionnaire . . . o 43 

Practicum Proposal Approval 44 

Peer Reader Form ^5 



6 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1. Representative Changes at 

York College of Pennsylvania \, . 13 

2. Results of Survey in Percent 20 

3. Table of Arithmetic Means 2i 



7 



INTRODUCTION 



Over the past decade York College of Pennsylvania 
has experienced major growth. The institution that was 
formerly York Junior College became a baccalaureate degree 
granting institution in 1968 and graduated its first senior 
class in 1970. During this period the student and faculty 
populations have increased by more than fifty perceiat. 

The participation in governance by the faculty has 
also increased proportionat during the past decade. An 
academic senate, academic council, administrative council, 
and board of trustee committees were formed. All of these 
organizations have faculty representation. The purpose of 
this paper was to measure how the faculty perceives the 
current governance structure of York College. This percep- 
tion was used as a basis for comparison with the current 
literature on college and university governance. Specific 
recommendations were then made to improve the governance 
system of the college^ 

National Governance Trends 

The recent changes in governance at York College 

■s 

8 



2 

are not unique. They have been occurring on a nation wide 

basis • Olsen (32:361) commenting on these changes stated: 

Higher education in America has undergone a pro- 
found alteration in scope and nature in the last decade. 
The question of who should govern what aspects of the 
university has presented the institution with a series 
of interlocking paradoxial problems of college 
governance. 

The change in administrators role in governance as 

it relates to the faculty is addressed by Richardson (38:16): 

The past three yeari^ have been momentous oiiies for 
administrators. Dur^jcig this period of time, we have 
witnessed a revolution in attitudes cor?ceming the role 
of the faculty in policy formulation. The question 
today is no longer one of whether faculty will be 
involved but rather the more serious issue of what the 
role of the administrator is likely to be should the 
current trend in the direction of separate faculty 
organizations for the purpose of negotiating salary 
and working conditions continue. 



Faculty Involvement in Governance 

The need for faculty involveir;ent in governance is 

well established. Dykes (13:5) points out: 

Effective faculty participation in the academic 
dec is ion -making process is essential. The complex 
problems confronting institutions of higher education 
everywhere require the best efforts of the best minds 
available if they are to be resolved satisfactorily, 

Corson (9:97) points out the difference between other 

organizations and the academic community is, "The authority 

and responsibility placed in the faculty, as a body, by 

tradition, by custom, or by formal bylaw or regulation." 

9 

o 

ERIC 



3 

The role of active faculty involvement in the 
governance of an institution is not contrary to the purpose 
of that institution. The central objective of education is 
the translation of the capabilities and talents of the 
faculty into significant educational results* Most deci- 
sions made on a college campus have a direct bearing on 
this objective. To the making of decisions the faculty 
will have both a valid concern and a capability to make 
important contributions, John Millett (28:102) supports 
this idea when he states, "The faculty member does not 
consider himself an employee of the college but a partner 
in the operation of the organization.'' 

Perhaps one of the oldest and most eloquent pleas 

for democratic participation is given by Aristotle (4:123): 

When there are many, each can bring his share of 
goodness and moral prudence; and when all meet together 
the people may thus become something in the nature of a 
single person, who - as he has many feet, many hands 
and many senses^ - may also have many qualities of 
character and intelligence. 

Faculty Perceptions of Governance 

To measure the faculty perception of governance at 
York College of Pennsylvania a survey was conducted, Tha 
measuring tool was the Likert Scale (19:197-211). 

The questionnaire was designed so that each of the 
twenty questions has four possible responses. They are 

10 



associated with the authoritative, benevolent authoritative, 
consultative, and participatory patterns of administration. 
The questionnaire was divided into seven areas of concern. 
They are leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, 
decision-making, goal setting, and feedback control. Each 
area of concern has been evaluated and compared to the 
current literature. Implications and recommendations have 
been made from this comparison. 

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 

When the topic of faculty participation in college 
governance is brought up there appears two questions. Why 
should the faculty participate in college governance and 
how should the faculty participate in this governance? 
Each of these topics have been examined. 

Many authors have written in favor of faculty 
involvement in governance. Among them are Ikenberry 
(17:371-374), Livingston (21:192-194), and Richardson 
(38:22). Several authors have surveyed faculty and reported 
on the results. Perhaps the most comprehensive is the 
American Association of University Professors Report 
(2:62-81). Others to use this method are Corson (9), Dykes 
(13) and Mason (23). Other authors have supported faculty 

V 

11 



involvement in governance from the point of view that 
teaching is a profession. Among these authors is Bidig 
(6:41). Faculty pressure for an increased role in govern- 
ance has been used by Livingston (21:191-192) and 
Mollenberg (29:377-378). 

The Need For Faculty Participation 

Four basic arguments can be given to justify the 
need to have faculty participate in college governance. 
First, the tenet proclaimed by John Locke in that govern- 
ment is established by the consent of those governed. 
Second, the Jeffersonian ideal that the competence of the 
ordinary citizen is a valid claim for participation in 
government o Third, recent research in the behavioral 
sciences has been demonstrating the great importance of 
involving personnel of an organization more fully in the 
decision-making process. And fourth, participation in 
governance by groups can improve the quality of the decision 
made. Each of these arguments has been considered in turn. 

Governance by Consent . There are several ways one 
can approach the idea that government is established by the 
consent of those governed. Perhaps the most common is that 
of trying to satisfy the pressures of the respective 
interest groups. Richardson (38:18) first points out that 

12 , 



6 



authority is by consent when he states, "let us draw some 
brief concliiblons concerning the implication that authority 
depends upon the assent of those governed." Later in that 
same article, after observing that the administrator has 
been celegated the authority by the board of control, he 
states: 

Administrators are employed to provide leadership 
ani to ensure smoothly functioning institutions. A 
failure to carry out these purposes - whatever the 
reason and regardless of the principles involved - will 
result in a lack of confidenc in the administrator and 
in his eventual replacement. 

In a different article (39:21) Richardson observes 

that increasingly, the combination of student and faculty 

pressures has caused the consideration of the participatory 

model of governance. Corson (10:437-438) also recognizes 

the: size and role of the faculty when he reports: 

The reasoning underlying the proposal that such a 
mechanism (participatory governance) is needed rest on 
the fact that the college or university must be recog- 
nized for what it is - a political commiinity. By 
"political community" is meant that the institution is 
made up of several factions, each of which possesses 
parochial views and the power to disrupt or endanger^ 
the institutions operations. Decisions that will stick, 
that is, that will harness the zeal or at least be 
accepted, can only be made through a process in which 
the several factions are consulted, can voice their 
opinions, and exercise an influence proportionate to 
the competence they bring to each particular decision. 

Other authors have also written about participation 

as a means for obtaining acceptance of resulting decisions. 



13 



Thompson (46:161) states, "Participation by all groups can 
benefit the pursuit of the university's purpose by helping 
to secure willing and informed acceptance of decisions," 

Competency and Diversity of Participants , The 
competency and diversity of those who participate in the 
governance process has often been presented as a favorable 
argument, Thompson (46:159) claims, "that the combination 
of knowledge and perspectives of a group yields wiser 
decisions than those made by single individuals." Harold 
Wo Dodds (.12:97) extends this argument. The fundamental 
reason why the faculty should participate at the highest 
policy level, "is the cardinal truth that if an institution 
is to prosper, it must utilize the intellectual application 
and imaginative thinking of more than the president, vice- 
presidents, and deans," 

When Henderson (15:80) writes about governance 

through group participation in decision-making he discusses 

the collegial tradition of colleges: 

Colleges and universities have a strong tradition 
of collegial spirit and action. The faculty in many 
senses are peers of administrators. They are prof es- 
sional men and women, and each is expert in his own 
area of knowledge. If one looks at the classroom or 
the laboratory where the education and the research 
take place, it is clear that the professor must play 
a strong role in determining goals and methods. It 
can also be contended that since the student is the 



8 

learner, he too will do a better job of learning if he 
helps map out the goals and the methods Thus it can 
be reasoned that the professors and also the students 
should have a wider participation in determining the 
over-all goals, the program, and the evaluation 
procedures. 

The diversity of the participants also plays an important 
part in dec is ion -making in a participatory model of govern- 
ance. This is brought out by Thompson (46:160) when he 
writes about improving the quality of decisions. Such 
decisions are likely to be made more wisely if the diversity 
of various members who contribute to the college's aims are 
brought to bear on the issues. He also points out that 
this is particularly critical in a period of rapid change 
and intense questioning of the nature of the educational 
process. 

Motivation Research . Among the theorist in motiva- 
tion research is A. H. Maslow who has formulated a positive 
theory of human motivation. He discusses (22:90-91) that 
satisfaction of the self-esteem need, the desire for 
reputation or prestigue, status, recognition, importance 
or appreciation, leads to feelings of self-confidence, 
worth and adequacy of being useful and necessary in the 
world. Douglass McGregor expands on Maslow' s ideas when he 
states: 



9 

Finally - a capstone, as it where, on the 
hierarchy - there are the needs for self- fulfillment. 
These are the needs for realizing one's own poten- 
tialities, for continued self development, for being 
creative in the broadest sense of the term. 

Herzberg (16:57) points out that satis fiers are 
achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, 
advancement and growth. Richardson and Bender (41:40) 
recognize the importance of motivation in the shared 
authority model of governance when they write, "The strength 
of the shared authority model rest with the values they 
promote, their flexibility in dealing with the need for 
change and their ability to motivate members to function at 
higher levels of committment." 

Joughin (18:204-205) suggest that faculty partici- 
pation in institutional governance can play a major part in 
recruiting nev; and retaining esteemed faculty. Likert 
(19:46) points out that, "Shifts toward system four (par- 
ticipatory) are accompanied by long range improvements in 
productivity, labor relations, cost and ea • yngs^-' Perhaps 
Richardson, Blocker, and Bender (42: 112) sum it up best 
when discussing their participatory model of governance: 

Objectives are developed jointly, with the result 
that there is substantial committment to their achiev- 
ment by all members within the organization, and cor- 
responding satisfaction when they are achieved. Thus, 
access to the satisfaction of higher-level n6eds is not 
exclusively the province of administrators but is shared 
with: faculty and students. 

16 



10 

We have just seen the need for faculty ^^^o^ygjne^^*^ 
in governance. An examination of the idea of ^^^^^^ent 
consent, the Jeffersonial idea of the competently 0:f ^.^^ 
people, and the behavioral science approach to ^^ti^^^j^^^^i 
theory have established the necessity and desi^*® fo^ ^ 
participatory model of governance. Wsi now tun^ to ^.^^ ^bV^ 
in which this involvement can be structured. 

How the Faculty Should Be Involved . 

The American Association of University ^^^^^ssor^ 
and its sister organizations, the American Coun^^^l. Ot^ 
Education and the Association of Governing Boa^^s 
Universities and Colleges have always been acti^^ 
determining the role of faculty in the governaJ^^^ 0;f 
institutions. The American Association of Uni^^^sj^^.^ 
Professors has long had a standing committee, ^^^^Ittee 'f^ 
that addresses itself to college government, ^^^^^ps tb^ 
most used document concerning college goveman^^® Is ^he 
American Association of University Professotg^ ^^^^Sra^eig^^ 
o n Government of Colleges and Universities . ' *^^^t doct^"" 
ment (3:378) the faculty's role is clearly poii»*^^d ^^^^ llie 
prime responsibilities of the faculty are in a^^^s ^u^^" 
riculum, subject matter and methods of instruction^ 
search, faculty status and those aspects of stt^^^nt nfe 

17 



11 

which relate to the educational process. The faculty sets 
the requirements for degrees. Appointment, promofcion, 
tenure and dismissal are primarily a faculty responsibility. 
And finally, faculty should actively participate in the 
determination of policy and procedures that determine 
salary and salary increases. 

This same document also presents a structure for 
faculty participation, "Agencies of faculty participation 
in the government of the college or university should be 
established at each level where faculty responsibility is 
present o" This is to point out that both structures and 
procedures should permit joint participative action by all 
components of the university. 

Mason (23:44) supports the 1966 statement when he 
discusses the implies shared authority: 

The faculty and the administration particularly 
participate jolatly in influence and dec is ion -making, 
.o.the model voices the faculty predominant in issues 
where its special knowledge or status so require. 

The American Association of University Professors 

has long believed in faculty participation in college 

governance. The first recommendation of Committee T*s 

final report on their 1953 study points out this fact very 

clearly (2:78): 



12 

The committee wishes again to suggest, as it did 
following the study in 1939, that accrediting agencies 
be urged to recognize, among the criteria for the 
judgement of educational institutions, the importance 
of procedures which provide adequately for faculty 
participation wherever such participation will be 
useful. The kinds of consultation employed within a 
college or university are exceedingly significant as 
evidence of the quality of the intellectual environment 
with which the specific institution provides members of 
its faculty. 

The American Association of University Professors 
appears to ::e seeking support from accrediting agencies. 
Other groups have supported them in their quest. Most 
recently the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (8:41) 
has made the following recommendation a high priority. 
"Faculties should be granted, where they do not already 
have it, the general level of authority as recommended by 
the American Association of University Professors." 

There are other writers who have described specific 
structures for participatory governance models. It was not 
the purpose of this papo.r to examine these various models. 
What has been established is that a participatory model is 
desirable and that many groups and individuals have suppor- 
ted this tenant. 

Justification for the Study 

This brings us to the question of what has happened 
at York Qollege of Pennsylvania that has led us to make 

19 



this report. 

The changes that have occured at York College 
during the past several years have been drastic. Table 1 
illustrates several areas of concern to the college that 
have been typical of these changes. These figures were 
taken from Data Presented for Consideration by the Commis - 
sion of Higher Education , Middle States Association , (11) 
and The Presidents Report to the College, 1974-1975 , (27) . 
During the past seven years the budget has increased by 
360 7o, the number of volxraies in the library by 150%, the 
number of full time faculty by 507o and the number of 
students (full time equivalent) by 53%. These changes can 
be extended to all phases of the institution. 



Table 1 

Representative Changes at 
York College of Pennsylvania 



~— — ^__^Academic Year 
Area of Concern "•"■~>-~-.....,^ 


1967-1968 


1974-1975 


Budget (Expenses) 


$952,370 


$4,378,162 : 


Library (Volumes) 


34,350 


85,963 


Faculty (Full Time) 


48 


72 


Students (Full Time Equivalent 


1,432 


2,187 



14 

During this period there has been similar growth 
in faculty participation in the governance of the college. 
In 1968 an Academic Senate was formed. This senate consist 
of all full time faculty, top level administrators and 
student, representatives. Much of the decision-making 
and policy-setting of the college has been done in the 
fourteen committees of this senate. In 1972 the Academic 
Coxincil was formed. This council consist of the Dean of 
Academic Affairs and the nine department chairmen. This 
body has been responsible for a large portion of the 
academic policy of the collegeo In 1975 the faculty placed 
voting members on all of the Board of Trustee cominittees 
with the exception of the Budget Committee. 

It is also important to note that the Middle States 
Reports of 1969 and 1971 both suggest improvements in the 
governance structure of the college. The 1969 report (36) 
states: 

It is recommended that the Board of Trustees and 
administrative staff demonstrate their interest in 
tinders tanding students and their problems by (1) estab- 
lishing clearly defined channels of commxmication for 
the college, and (2) providing opportunity for effective 
student participation in institutional affairs. 

Since the college was in a period of transition from a 

two-year institution to a four-year institution it was to 

be re-ev^Iuated in 1971. The 1971 report (37:3-4) contains 



15 



the following section on Administration and Governance: 

As the college moves into the higher complexities 
implicit in its new adventures, we sense that careful 
thought should be given to more effective (in terms of 
the new complexities) distribution and delegation of 
authority and responsibility throughout the formal 
administrative structure, and among those in the 
faculty and student body who hold quasi-administrative 
posts. The college is deliberately moving from a 
necessary emphasis on physical development toward a 
commitment to find a place in the community of four- 
year colleges, and this at a time when such institution 
are being told that their future existence as private 
colleges will depend on their unique qualities and 
contributions. It seems essential, therefore, to the 
future of the college as a unique institution, that the 
President and his top administrators have time for 
contemplation regarding the educational course that is 
being set. In short the President and his colleagues 
must have time to "waste" on educational philosophy. 

Beyond this, we sense that, correctly or not, 
faculty and students do not see themselves as being 
significantly involved in those dec is ions -making 
processes that relate to their roles here. It is not 
clear, nor does it matter especially, why this is so. 
* What matters is how to effect a cure. For, if the 
administration is to have meditative time, responsibil- 
ity and authority must be shared. 

The formal structure for implementing such sharing 
of responsibility and authority seems already to exist 
to a considerable degree. Yet, the relationship among 
the offices of the President, the Deaa of the 
and the Dean of Academic Affairs is for some reason - 
unclear in practice; the lower echelons are confused on 
the source of decisions and the proper^ 
action in such areas as, for example, persoimer^^^d^^ 
isions , office as s ignments , and budge tar^^ . 
Every effort needs to be exerted to m 
channels of decision making j to modify tliCT 
wise, and to use them with confidence. 



16 

These reports suggested specific changes be made. 
The Middle States Association will be re-evaluating York 
College in 1977 • It is important to demonstrate to this 
association that there have been sincere efforts to improve 
the governance structure of the college. If the faculty 
perceive themselves as being significantly involved in the 
decision-making process then this should be considered 
a m;sjor improvement. The communication structure was also 
critized as a possible cause of some of the problem. The 
faculty's perception of the current communication procedures 
will also be of value. 

In the fall of 1976 the current college president 
will be retiring after eighteen years of service to the 
institution as chief officero A new president has been 
selectedo The perceptions of the faculty in the area of 
college governance can be of great importance in allowing 
a new executive to gain the confidence and support of his 
faculty. It is hoped that this report will be of some 
value to this end. 



PROCEDURES 

The method that was used to determine how the 
faculty perceived the governance of York College of 
Pennsylvania was a survey. The instrvraient that was used 
was the Likert Scale (19: 197-211) • 

The questionnaire has been designed so that each 
of the twenty questions has four possible responses. They 
are associated with the exploitive authoritative, benev- 
olent authoritative, consultative, and participative 
patterns of administration. The questionnaire has the 
questions divided into seven areas of concern. They are 
leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision 
making, goal setting and feedback control. Each area of 
concern has been evaluated and compared to the current 
literature. Implications and recommendations have been 
made from this comparison. 

Population Used v 
The survey was distributed to each of the full time?/ 
faculty members of the college. This included, department 
chairmen, present and past presidents of the Academic 
Senate, iahd committee chairmen. 



18 

Statistical Method Used 

The restilts of the survey were first tabulated. 
Those tabulations were then delt with in two ways. First, 
the tabulations were changed to percentages so that compar- 
isons could be made. Second, the exploitive authoritative, 
benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participatory 
patterns, were assigned nximerical values of one, two, three 
and four respectivelyo An arithmetic mean was calculated 
for each of twenty questions, each of the seven areas of 
concern and a total arithmetic mean for all responses was 
calculated* 

Limitations and Assumptions 

Two basic limitations occurred. First, only about 
fifty- two percent of the questionnaires were returned o 
Second, and related, the small sample size and the peculi- 
arities of the group limit the generalizations that can be 
made. 

There were several assumptions made. It was neces- 
sary to assimie that the faculty has an accurate perception • 
of the governance structure of the college* It was assumed 
that a governance structure can be measured and that the 
Likert Scale would be an accurate tool with which to make 
this meaisi^rement. It was assumed that the limitations would 

25 



19 

not adversly effect the overall results of the survey. 
And finally, it was assumed that if a research project is 
designed with care and executed in a similar manner, that 
the results will be accurate and of value. 

RESULTS 

The results of the survey have been tabulated and 
are shown on Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2, on page twenty, 
contains percentage tabulations for each of the responses 
to each of the questions on the questionnaire. Those who 
did not complete a particular question were not counted in 
the compilation. The percentages are rounded to the nearest 
whole number and adjusted so that the sum of the responses 
for any particular question totals one hundred percent. 

Table 3, on page twenty-one, contains the arithmetic 
means. Columns one, two, three, and four were assigned 
numerical values of one, two, three, and four respectively. 
These numbers were then used to compute arithmetic means. 
The arithmetic mean was computed for each question and is ^ 
listed in the first column of Table 3. The arithmetic mean 
for each of the areas of concern was computed and is listed 
in the second colxmn of that same table. An arithmetic mean 
was computed for all responses and was found to be 2.34. 

26 



8 



Table 2 
Results of Survey in Percent 









SYSTEM 1 


SYSTEM 2 


SYSTEM 3 


SYSTEM 4 


a 


n 


How much oonfidenot ii «howfi 
in ^ubordinam? 


8 


60 


32 


0 


■ 5 • 

1. 


2) 


How friM do thfv feet to talk 
to luQcriori about job? 


4 


50 


31 


15 


-J 


i) 


Are subordinate' i^at 
•ought and ut9d. if vwrihy? 


15 


66 


19 


0 



Is pftfdommant uie nvdaof 

1 ) ftaf . 2) threats. 3) plJmt^• 

mant, 4) rtwardi, 5) inwolyffnent? 



5) Wh«n» rasponfibfliiY fait 
for ach^avtng org. ^calt? 



31 



6) WTiai! ii the dirac. of »ofo. flow? 



8 



' 7) How it downward comm. acoapted? 



16 



8) Hdw accura)* it upward oo^om.? 



9) How wall do lupartors know 
problems faced by iubord«natat7 

10) What is Character of inter- 
action? 



23 



24 



1 1 ) How much cooperative teamwork 
is present? 



14 



31 



38 



24 



29 



54 



38 



44 



29 



23 



31 



48 



42 



23 



38 



56 




29 





12) 


At what level are (decisions 
formally made? 


58 


27 


11 


4 




13) 


WhJt IS the onqin of t^chntcai 
and professional knowledgtf used 
in deci$»on makmo^ 


28 


28 


44 


0 




141 


Are suborriinai<*5 involved tn 
ri«»ctsiO'U rebted to tneir work' 


5 


54 


34 


8 




1!^^ 


What does decision making pfo 
ce^s contritjute to iTx>tivatiO(v' 


19 


31 


35 


15 . 




.16) How are org. goals established^ 



<^ ^ 17) How'much coveit resistance 
' to goafs IS present? 



31 



18) How concentrated are review 
and control functions' 



31 



J? 191 Is there an mformal organization 
2 a resisting the formal one? 

Z o ■ . 



15 



20) What are cost, productivity. 

and other control data used lor ? 



13 



42 



50 



50 



19 



54 



54 



19 



19 



54 



29 



20 

27 




Table 3 
"^^bie of Arithmetic Means 



Arithmetic Mean 
for this Question 



ERIC 




Arithmetic Mean 
for this Concern 



22 

The seven questions to receive the highest means 
were considered above average. They were 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 
17, and 19. The seven questions to receive the lowest 
means were considered below average. They were 3, 5, 9, 10, 
12, 13, and 18. The remaining six questions in the middle 
were considered average. They were 1, 4, 14, 15, 16, and 
20. The question receiving the highest mean, 3.00, was 
number eight concerning upward communications. The question 
receiving the lowest mean, 1.62, was number twelve concern- 
ing the level at which decisions are formally made. 

The two highest areas of concern were Communications 
with 2.55 and Setting Goals with a 2.52. The two lowest 
areas of concern were Making Decisions with a 2.17 and Feed- 
back Control with a 2.25. The three areas of concern in 
the middle were Leadership, Motivation and Interaction. 

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The arithmetic mean of 2.34 for all responses 
places the overall governance structure, as it is per- 
ceived by the faculty, between the benevolent authoritative 
and consultative patterns of management □ This does not 
seem to indicate that the faculty perceives a participatory 
form of governance at York College of Pennsylvania. If one 



23 

accepts the pleas of the literature for a participative 
structure there appears to be room for improvement at York 
College. The researcher will make nine specific recommen- 
dations towards this end. 

It is important to note the significance of a 
research project conducted in the California Community 
College system by L. C. Riess (43).- In a survey of both 
administrators and faculty he found that faculty perceived 
' less faculty participation and recommended a higher degree 
of involvement. On the other hand, administrators perceived 
a higher level of participation on behalf of the faculty. 

Leadership . In order to recognize the implications 
and to make recctr(?raendations concerning this survey, each of 
the areas of concern on the questionnaire were studied. 
The arithmetic mean of the leadership area was 2.29, 
slightly below average. The question concerning confidence 
shown in subordinates was slightly below average while the 
question of subordinates talking with superiors was well 
above average. Question three on the use o£ subordinates' 
ideas was well below average. 

When Budig (6:31) writes about educational leader- 
ship he has the following to say: 



24 



No single function of the administration is more 
Important than articulation of institutional goals 
and problems in need of resolution. This includes 
the perceptiveness to recognize broad consensus on 
institutional or unit mission when such agreement 
exist, and establishing the mechanisms to arrive at 
such a consensus when it does not already exist. 

Leadership style is also Important to authors such 
as Herzberg (16:55), Reddin (35:229) and Richardson (41:1-9). 
Llkert (19:103) when writing about cooperative behavior 
states the following principle: 

The leadership and other processes of the organ- 
ization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability 
that in all interactions and relationships within the 
organization, each member, in the light of his back- 
ground, values, desires, and expectations, will view 
the experience as supportive and one which builds and 
maintains his sense of personal worth and importance. 



Recommendation 1: The administration and department 
chairmen, should seek ideas from their subordin ates and use 
them if worthy . 



Motivation . The ari thme t ic mean o f the mo tiva t ion 
area was 2.26, slightly below average. Both the question 
on methods of motivation and responsibility for achieving . 
goals were slightly to moderately below average . 

Although motivation is only slightly below average - ; 
it can still be Improved. Herzberg (16:57) shows that 
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement. 



25 

growth and the work itself are motivators. Less than 
twenty percent of the faculty perceived that rewards and 
involvement were used as motivators. Participation in the 
governance system of an institution can be one of many ways 
of achieving motivation. This is recognized by Joughin 
(18:205) when he states, ^^he real question for an insti- 
tution is what it can offer a man it wants to hold. Here 
is where faculty participation in institutional government 
can play a major part." 

The behavioral scientist have added much to motiva- 
tional theory. When Maslow (22:90) discusses the esteem 
needs of an individual he uses terms such as achievement, 
mastery, reputation,- and prestigue. Satisfaction of these 
needs leads to a feeling of individual worth and of being 
useful and necessary. When McGregor (24:56) ext^fends^ 
Maslow' s theory and discusses his Theory Y method of 
management he states, "Theory Y assvimes that people will 
exercise self direction and self-control in the achievement 
of organizational objectives to the degree that they are 
committed to those objectives." Both authors also discuss 
the fact that commitment to objectives is related to the , 
amotttit of direct participation in the formulation of those 
objectives. 



The discussion of the need for motivators in an 
industrial setting can be extended to the academic insti- 
tution. Likert (19:106) has discussed the implications of 
the social scientist research in industry: 

The highest productivity, best performance, and 
highest earnings appear at present to be achieved by 
System 4 [Participative] organizations. These organ- 
izations mobilize both the noneconomic motives and 
economic motives so that all available motivational 
forces create cooperative behavior focused on achieving 
the organizations* objectives a The enterprise is a 
tightly knit, well-coordiwated organization of highly 
motivated persons. As social science research makes 
further substantial contributions to the art of manage- 
ment, science-based systems even more productive than 
System 4 are likely to be developed. 

Recommendation 2. The faculty of the college should be 
given some of the responsibility for achieving organizat - 
ional goals. In particular^ those goals involving academic 
matters should be the responsibility of the faculty . 

Communication . The section of the survey on commun- 
ication had the highest arithmetic mean, 2.55, of any 
section. The two questions on the direction of flow of 
communications and the acceptance of downward communications 
were both well above average. The question on the accuracy 
of upward communication received the highest mean, 3^00, 
on the survey. This was probably due to the fact that those 
being surveyed were responsible for the upward coniimmicat ion. 



27 

However, the question on ijuperiors knowledge of the problems 
faced by subordinates was well below average. 

Recommendation 3. All key administrators who do not now 
teach should be required to teach r:: least one course per 
year . 

Because of the high rating of this section it 
appears that substantial improvement has been made in the 
•commmication area since the Middle States Accreditation 
Report of 1969 (36). One cannot however, underestimate 
the importance of communication. Unruh (47:29) feels that 
the failure to communicate accurately and effectively may 
turn out to be the central problem of modem university 
governance. This importance is again pointed out by Stroup 
(45:117), "the problem of communications in the modem 
college is formidable.... Yet, by means of effective 
communication the machinery of the whole institutional 
apparatus runs more smoothly." 

Budig (6:39) has presented a very complete discus- 
sion of what the faculty expectations are in the area of 
communications. 

Faculty require communicative skill in administra- 
tors. They expect educational leaders who are articu- 
late spokesmen for the faculty and institutional 
interest. Beyond this ,. they also des ire adminis trat iye 
leadership capable of* creating effective horizontal and 



28 



vertical communication patterns. Good horizontal 
communication means effective communications from 
faculty to faculty, among students, from one adminis- 
trator to another. Effective upward vertical commun- 
ication - a very real need of faculty - implies largely 
passive communication skills of the administrator, such 
as openness and willingness to listen to faculty view- 
points on the part of a chairman or dean with some 
evidence of feedback. Downward vertical communication 
(dedn to chairmen, administrator to faculty, faculty to 
student) ordinarily requires a higher proportion of the 
more active communication skills. 

The problems of organizational coordination and 

problem solving both involve communication. The differences 

are pointed out by many authors. Richardson in (38:19) and 

again in (^2:90), and Blau and Scott who conclude thier 

findings on communication by writing: 

A hierarchical organization, in part precisely 
because it restricts the free flow of communications, 
improves coordination; indeed, it seems to be essential 
for effective coordination of group effort * This is the 
. dilemma posed by hierarchical differentiation: while it 
is necessary for coordination, it blocks communication 
processes that are vital for stimulating initiative and 
facilitating decision-making. 

Interaction . The section of the survey concerned 
with interaction was average with an arithmetic mean of 
2.35. The question on the characteristics of the interaction 
was well below average showing some fear and distrust was 
present. 

Recommendation 4. More interaction between faculty, students 
administrators and trustees should occur. 



29 



The question on cooperative teamwork was well above average 

Richardson (42:28) discusses the need for interac- 
tion as follows: 

As important as it is to prevent conflict or to 
resolve conflict, the interaction of administrative 
and governance structures may have a still more 
role. The ability of an institution to use its resour- 
ces effectively for goal attainment depends upon the 
existence of a satisfactory degree of congruence 
between the objectives of the institution and the attit 
udes of its constituencies. The involvement of all 
constituencies in goal identification, program plan- 
ning, and evaluation can be a powerful force in shaping 
such congruence. 

Likert (19:29) presents this on a broader scale. He 
discusses that all members of an organization and their 
collective capacity for effective interaction, communi- 
cation, and decision making are reflected in the internal 
state and health of the organization. 



Decision-Making . The section of the survey that 
concerned decision-making received the lowest arithmetic 
mean of all sections, 2.17. Question twelve, on the level 
of decision making, was the lowest rated question on the 
questionnaire, 1.62. The question on the origin of back- 
eround information used to make decisions was also below 
average.. The question on subordinate involvement and the 
use of decision-making as a motivational tool were both 
above average. 



30 

The results of question thirty demonstrate that 
the faculty perceived that they were involved in the 
decision process but that the final decision was made by 
top administrators. This was also a major criticism of 
the Middle States Accreditation Report of 1971 (37:3). 
The faculty also perceives that they are not consulted 
enough in the decision-making process. 

Recommendation 5. All decisions should be made at the 
appropriate levels, involving those most qualified to 
make the decision . 

Recommendation 6. When a decision is reached at any point 
in the organization, it should be brought to the prompt 
attention of all those who will be affected . 

Recommendation 7. When differences of opinion exist on 
the propriety of a decision a method of mediation should 
be formed . 

Several authors have presented general discussions 
of decision-making. Among them are Corson (9: 10-12) , 
Likert (20), Stroup (45), Richardson (42:87-90), and 
Henderson (15:80). Budig (6:33) presents the facult 
expectations on decision-making in the following manner: 

37 



31 



Faculty reasonably expect that decisions will be 
made by administrative officers and that these deci- 
sions will be fair and just. The absence of decisions 
is an abdication of leadership which no faculty will 
long tolerate. A series of decisions unacceptable to 
the faculty simply requires new leadership. Ultimately, 
the requirements of "fairness" and "justice". in decis- 
ion-making includes (1) a freedom from personal bias or 
personal benefit resulting from the decision; (2) a 
deliberate weighing of alternatives, including an 
openness to consideration of the relative merits (or 
disadvantages) of possible courses of action; (3) the 
existence of a fairly explicit value system upon which 
decisions are based; and when necessary, (4) the will- 
ingness to explain the rational basis for a decision. 
Implicit in these requirements is the understanding 
that values upon which decisions are premised are 
widely shared in the group. A basic value widely 
shared in any academic community is a commitment to 
rationality and open deliberations as a means of 
improving the human condition. Thus the arbitrary 
(unilateral) decision is per se viewed as the unjust 
or "unfair" administrative decision. A faculty member 
will generally accept a decision, even if he disagrees, 
if he feels he has had the opportunity to participate 
meaningfully in the deliberations prior to the decision 
and if he can require a rational defense from his 
' administrator. 



Setting Goals . The section of the questionnaire 
concerning setting goals had an arithmetic mean of 2.52. 
This was well above average and second highest on the 
survey. The two questions on how the goals are established 
and the resistance to these goals both were well above 
average. 

Recommendation 8. The faculty should be more involved in 
determining the goals of the institution . 



EKLC 



38 



32 

The research that has been presented relating to 
business, industry and the social sciences has demonstrated 
that in order to effectively reach organizational goals 
there must occur participation in the establishment of 
those goals* The tradition of collegiality in colleges 
has been strong. The faculty tend to think of themselves 
as peers of administrators, Afterall the business of 
education takes place in the classroom. The professor 
must play a strong role in determining the over-all goals 
of the institution. 

Feedback Control , The section of the survey that 
concerned feedback control had an arithmetic mean of 2,25, 
slightly below average. The question on the existence of 
a resisting informal organization was well aboye average. 
Several of the surveys identified the local chapter of the 
American Association of University Professors, which consist 
of about thirty-five percent of the faculty, as an informal 
organization resisting the administration. 

The question on the use of productivity informatiori 4 
was slightly below average while the question on the review 
and control function was well below average; . ; ■ : 

During the past two years theire has been much cleba^ 
on the role of the department VchairiMn, ,T*ieir; role has^been| 



33 

and still is chiefly clerical. There have been some 
changes to make the chairmanship more decisive but it is 
still felt that there is too much administrative control, 
TJxis was probably the reason for the faculty perceiving 
the review and control functions were concentrated toward 
the top levels of administration. 

Recommendation 9, The department chairmen should be given 
broader and more definitive powers when dealing with 
faculty and departmental concerns . 

The feedback system is used to regulate the intern- 
relationships within the structure of the college. The 
control of the feedback system ultimatly affects the com- 
munication networks, interaction of the individual members, 
decision-making and the overall operation of the institution. 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations are made in the hope 
that they will help in making the goveraance^^stnicture^^a 
York College of Pennsylvania more participatory,; 

1, The administration and department chairmen 
should, seek ideas from their subordinates and us,6 : them' ^ 
if worthy. 



2. The faculty of the college should be given 
of the responsibility for achieving organizational goals. 

M 

In particular, those goals involving academic matters sho^ 
be the responsibility of the faculty. 

3. All key administrators who do not now teach 
should be required to teach at least one course per year. 

4. More interaction between faculty, students, 
administrators and trustees should occur. 

5. All decisions should be made at the appropria*^^ 
levels, involving those most qualified to make the decisi^^' 

6« When a decision is reached at any point in th^ 
organization, it should be brought to the prompt attentio<^ 
of all those who will be affected. 

7. When differences of opinion exist on the 
propiety of a decision a method of mediation should be 
formed. 

8. The faculty should be more involved in deter- 
mining the is of the institution. 

9. The department chairmen should be given 
broader and more definitive powers when dealing with 
faculty and departmental concerns. 



41 



35 

^^Chf«8h the overall 
used As ^ ^'^^^^^^^^^ for comparison it should not be consid- 
ered A Q^^^^^^"*"^ Average. It lies somewhere between the 
benevQlj^t^C ****^^°^^tive and consultative methods of manage- 
ment, from being Considered a pa^^^^^^P^tive 
struct:^:^:^. ^^nce ^^^jj £,f the current liter^iture points 
toward ^ ^t^^'^^^'^^thority foxm of govejmance there seem to 
be majcj:^: pt^^^^^^ Heeded to achieve this. It is hoped that 
the r^cW^*^'*^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^° achieve this goal. 

stio^Id ^3^go be pointed out that some changes to 
improve t^*^ ^^^^^ti^g structure ha^e been made, some as 
recent; ^^^t year. Perhaps the existing structure 

is aU^^^j/ S'^^^^cient and it will gradually o»o^® toward a 
parti<id^)^i;^^ system. Most of the authors o^t that 

it is <7^t^^ ^ ^^^iod of years before change^ ^^^e i^ a 
struct^:t^ ^^"^^ effect on the participants. Ness (31:40) 
states^ ••^^'^^^^^P^tion is not a theoretic problem but an 
implen^^^it^*^^'''' Problem." 

difference between what the factjlty perceives, 
the a(bit^,i^*^^^^^°ti perceives and what actuary ®*^ist could 
vary ^^r^^C^^' "^^re has always been a confli^*^ «nd probably 
always ^ conflict between faculty and adminigtr- 

tion. 'xii^ P^^^leia is pointed out by Mortlioer (30:482) : 



36 



Those who yearn for peace in colleges and univer- 
sities will find it a relative condition. Institutions 
of higher education will have to learn to live with 
more or less permanent conflict and seek to make them 
serve the organization rather than destroy it. 

While the administration is concerned with control, plan- 
ning, commjtmication and coordination it is the faculty who 
must reassume the leadership of the traditional collegial 
function, a role made even more critical by the necessity 
for the administration to involve itself almost entirely 
with management. Olsen (32:364). 

While it is recognized that all institutions can 
be improved, it is now always appropriate to compare a 
college to a theoretical model. It is important to keep a 
comparison such as this one in perspective. There is no 
such place as the ideal college. 

McGeorge Bundy (7:47) has an insight into the role 
of the faculty when he states: 

I believe trustees will continue to have a major 
role in the institution, and the readiness of the 
students for a greater share of the responsibility, 
whatever its Immediate and temporary explosiveness, 
should be a gain for the university as a whole. But 
in the end, and xmrepentantly, I insist. on the faculty ♦ 
as the center. Trustees give time and money and advice 
and external support of all sorts; students spend some 
years here. But for the members of the £«culty the i, 
university is life Itself. This centtat commitment is 1;. 
what justifies their central role, and in their effective 
relations with the preisldency is the center of the 
politics of the modem university, J 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Allan, George. "Twixt Terror and Thermidor:. Reflections 
on Campus Governance," The Journal of Higher Education , 
April, 1971, 292-308. 

The American Association of University Professors. 
"The Place and Function of Faculties in College and 
University Government," AAUP Bulletin . March 1955, 
62-81. 

. "Report of the Survey Subcommittee of 

Committee T," AAUP Bulletin . Summer, 1969, 180-185. 

Aristotle. Poetics , trans. E. Barker. New York: 
Oxford University Press, 1962. 

Blau, Peter M., and Richard W. Scott. Formal 
Organization . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing 
Company, 1962. 

Budig, Gene A., and Stanley G. Rives. Academic 
Quicksand: Some Trends and Issues in Higher Education . 
Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Publications, 
Inc., 1972. 

Bundy, McGeorge. "Faculty Power," Atlantic, September, 
1968, 41-47. 

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance 
of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems . New York: 
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. 

Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities- . 
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. 

. "The Modernization of the University: the ■ 
Impac t of Function on Governance ." The Journal of Higher; 
Education, June, 1971, 430-441. 



38 

11. "Data Presented for Consideration by the Commission 
on Institutions of Higher Education, Middle States 
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1968," 
York College of Pennsylvania, 

12. Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President; Educator or 
Caretaker ? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. 

13. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic . 
Decision Making . Washington D.C.: American Council on 
Education, 1968. 

14. Fogarty, Robert S. "The Good "Place or No Place: 
Communication on the Campus," In Search of leaders . 
G. Kerry Smith, ed. Washington D. C: American 
Association for Higher Education, 1967. 

15. Henderson, Algo D. "Effective Models of Onivetsity 
Governance," In Search of Leaders . G. Kerry Smith, ed. 
Washington D. C. : American Association for Higher 
Education, 1967. 

16. Herzberg, Frederick, "One More Time; How Do You 
Motivate Employees?", Harvard Business Review , 
January-February, 1968^ 53-57. 

17. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "Restructuring the Governance 
• of Higher Education," AAUP Bulletin . December, 1970, 

371-374. 

18. Joughin, Louis. "Faculty Participation in University 
or College Governance," Current Issues in Higher 
Education . G. Kerry Smith, ed. Washington D. C: 
American Association for Higher Education, 1966. 

19. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization . New York: 
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. 

20. . New Patterns of Management . New York: 
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. 

21. Livingston, John C. "Faculty and Administrative Rolea 
in Decision Making," Stress and Campus R esponse. 

G. Kerry Smith, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc,, 
1968. 



45 



i 



ERIC 




39 



22. ; Mas low, A. H. M otivation and Personality ^ New York: 
Harper and Brothers Publishing Co,, 1954* 

23* Mason, Henry L* College and University Government s 
Vol. XIV, Tulane Studies in Political Science , 
New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1972. 

24. McGregor, Douglas* The Htunan Side of Enterprise , 
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. 

25. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and 
Prospect . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960o 

16. Miller, Ray Ao "The Presidents Report, 1973-74,'" 
York College of Pennsylvania « 

27. . "The Presidents Report, 1974-75," York 

College of Pennsylvania. 

28. Millett, John D. The Academic Community . New York: 
The MacMillian Company, 1957. 

29. Moellenberg, Wayne P. . "The Hazards of Academic 
Administration," Intellect , February, 1976, 374-378. 

30. Mortimer, Kenneth P. "The Dilemmas in New Campus 
Governance Structures," The Journal of Higher Education , 

' June, 1971, 467-482. 

31. Ness, Frederic W. "Campus Governance and Fiscal 
Stability," Efficient College Mananement ^ William W. 
Jellema, ed. San Francisco: Josey^Bass inc., 1972. 

32. Olsen, James K. "Governance by Confrontation: 
Adversarialism at the University,"' Intellect , March, 
1974, 361-364. . 

33. Pfnister, Allan 0. "The Role of Faculty in University 
Governance," The Journal of Higher Education , June, 
1S70, 430-449. 

34. Pollay, Richard Wo, Ronald N. Taylor and Mark Tompson. 
"A Model for Horizontal Power Sharing and Participation 
in University Decision -Making," The Journal of Higher 
Education , March/April, 1976, 131-157. 



EKLC 



46 



40 

35. Reddin, William J. Managerial Effectiveness . New 
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. 

36. "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees of 
York Junior College, York, Pennsylvania By an 
Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States 
Commission on Institutions of Higher Education After 
Study of the Institution's Self-Evaluation and a Visit 
to. the Campus on February 16-19, 1969," Charles W. 
Laffin, Jr., Chairman. 

37. "A Report From The Evaluation Team Who Visited York 
College of Pennsylvania on October 10-13, 1971," 

To the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle 
States Association. Adolph G. Anderson, Chairman. 

38. Richardson, Richard C. Jr. "Needed: New Directions 
in Administration," Junior College Journal , March, 
1970, 16-21. 

39^ , "Restructuring in Himian Dimensions of Our 

Colleges," Junior College Journal , February, 1971, 
20-24. 

40, , "Governance Theory: A Comparison of 

Approaches," The Journal of Higher Education , May, 
1974, 344-354. 

41, and Louis W. Bender. College Governance . 

2d. ed. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Nova University, 
1974. 

42. _, Clyde E. Blocker and Louis W. Bender. 

Governance for the Two-Year College . Englewood Cliffs, 
New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1972. 

43. Riess, Louis C. "Institutional Attitudes Relating to 
Faculty Participation in California Coimmanity College ' 
Governance," A Doctorial Dissertation, 1970. 

44 Smith, Bardwell and Robert Reitz. "Authority, Shared 
and Increased," Liberal Education , December 1970, 
501-510. 



47 

ERIC 



41 



Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education . 
New York: The Free Press, 1966. 

Thompson, Dennis F. "Democracy and the Governing of 
the University," The Annals of the American Academy 
of Political and Social Science , Richard D. Lambert, 
ed., November 1972, 157-169. 

Unruh, Jesse M. "California Higher Education: A 
Report from the Under grovind." In Search of Leaders . 
G. Kerry Smith, ed, . Washington D. C . : American 
Association for Higher Education, 1967. 




^RC>FILE OF ORGANIZATIONAI. CHARACTERISTICS 



II HoM much conl^dpnct j» \t%o^ 
tn tubordinatti? 



None 



42 



Complrtr 



1 


2) 


Ho¥9 frw do they (Ml to talk 
to luptMoo stsout job' 


Not at all 






Fully U^t 




• 


31 


Arf tubordin«i»t' id««ft 
sou^hi ^d ui*d. il fNOtxt>^> 


Seldom 


Somri»rrwi 


Uiujiiy 


Alwayi 


■ — 




41 


It pf edoiDin^ni utC rrwide of 
U tear, 2) Ihretlt. 3) puniin- 


1.2.3 

occaiionally 4 


4. »ofne 3 


4. torne 3 a^J 5 


5,4. bated on 
group let QOait 




1 




rmnt. 4) rt¥*»cd». 5) mvolvemtnt? 












s 
1 




IVhtrt It rtiponiilxliiv (tit 


Moiily al top 


Top a>Hj mtdcttf 


Fairly grntral 


At ail leveit 






6) 


What it tht dt^. o( mfo. VIqm? 


Downward 


' Motlty downward 


Down and up 


Down, up, ft tidewayt 






7J 


How It downvM/d comm. accepted? 


With tuip<ton 


Pou, With ftutpicion 


With caution 


With open m<nd 






B> 


How accurate it upward comm.? 


Often wrong 


Ceniorcd (or bOit 


Limited accuracy 


Accurate 





9} How wvll do tuperiort know 

probtemt faced by tubordmatet' 



10} What tt character of mier- 
action' 



Know little 



Some knowledge 



Outte well 



Very well 



Little, alwavi w*th Little, utualiy with 
fear anddittruti lome condetcmtiort 



Mod.. often farr ami. 
conf»denc« and trult 



ERtentive. h*9h decree 

confid. & trust 



1 1 1 How much cooperative teamwork 
It p'rter»i> 



None 



Priattvety tittlt 



K1odt*ratr arrxiunt 



Very tubttantiai amt. 
throughout organ . 



Pn>'fv ai top Scr.^v 
tlel^gjiicn 



Bioad po<*cv at top. 
mot* «l«ieg*Jt«on 



Thiougnout but 



?l 


131 


I! il t*>i* 0»»9"> r»l wchn^c*' 
in (1<'Cit*on rrwik oij^ 


7iip it\jr,,»o*T'.«';'t 




To Cf rta»n e^tfri 
t^^roi.jnoat 


To J 9rpat f<r^x 

throughout 




i r 


M> 




at jii 






Fully invctlv^l 








Ah#i dt>ei deciv o" rnjk.ng (xo- 
crM CT.»nif»ixj»e 10 rnol»w*t«on' 


Notf^ing. olttfn 
w^akeni .t 




Some contribution 


Substantial 




? M 




How3»f o*3 goati pi:at>iii^7d' 


Ofdtu •«u'd 


Orrfcfi. Gome comrn inM 


All. a*ic. by ordert 


G'oupacticxi (««cept cnt^t) 




' H 

S3 


171 


How much covert rei»tTarce 
to goait It ptrt^nt ' 


Sirortg rei ir^'^Cr 


Moderate rei.itjncf 


Some rttittance 
at timet 


Little 01 nore 

• 






18) 


How conc^nitat^rt are t^vt^ 
and co'^irol f jnctionv' 


H jhtv at tn;} 


Retativety high at top 


^loderate delegation 
:o lo.^ irveit 


Quite Widely shared 


.•.::'^:i::>j4 


5 5 


ID! 


Il :ne»f jn •r»iorrTvl orv«ir>i/J*ion 
'ei.ti.nq thr larmjl on*> 


Yft 


U^ua'-'v 


Somet<met 


No*tamegoa<f 
at format 


■• ' y^y^k 




?0» 


Wh.i! aie cci', p*oiJuCTtvttv. 
a'v. ^"^er control dat j u\ed lor > 


Poltcng. 
ptin.fcnrneni 


Hew.ird and 
Cunithmfni 


, i 

Htf^a'd. tome teif- 
9u«dance 


Seil^tdance. 
problem tolving 





Flu. 3.1 PKirMi.K or ()R(.AM/\nONAL (;MAR^i:i>RI%1!iA ''' ' [^.-r^^^^jii^ 

Suuut ¥tttm f hr Hunan UfUf^uiztitnm 1»\ Rciui^ Likcii, (.opui^iit t^, l»Hi7 \t\ Mif.i.tu Il.M. Inc. lJu\l by prrmi^^iori of McCmwHiU BolA Comp«nyJ;.;^|| 



ERIC 



43 



York College, o:? FeMiisyj-vsr/ia 
vorlc, Pennsylvsnia' 
A-o:-:iI ?:9, 1976 



Dear CollesG'^.e, 

CO rag a vasearch project cn f-aculuy •pe/.'csption of^ 
coiXeSG SGvcK'-'ncnceo The 5i:i:r.c:I-ed eaest^oniicv.lre xrxll be used 
GS irr/ i-assav.::5ais tool, I sa hopiiig t'ae vesults will be of 
value to both t'as adainistr-ation. e.vA the fsuiiityo 

*Xt is rsal?J2ed that you are very busy azid the time spent 
by you. in filling out this form siid rsturniiis it to my through 
inter- office raail is' an itnpos5,tion on youo Ko-vever, the final 
study could prcr.^e to be ia^J^ortsnt in xnaking governance changes 
at ou.r cjollegeo 

On the att£iclied fora tLisre c.::q sa-.-an areas of concern to 
Sovsrnanceo Er:ch erea has ssveral quastions designed to eval- 
u=^teo ?lcase circle one 'of the four cascjriptors following the 
question that you feel best c"::-: scribes the gover.v.iince system at 
our colte^o.., 

S^j-uply s^::^-ed, X riec^d your help (Vc^itheri^S luy data and 
*c:culd a p;:o}ar)\: reply « 

■jin TroutTiian 

LS-45 ; ^